Devon and Cornwall response to FoI request

[jb1]

There is a reason why firearms are siezed, I would guess violence has happened or threatened, then I would fully expect the police to act. Domestic abuse will be a massive issue. You don't get your guns taken for no reason.

Sorry Crowstalker you are incorrect,

Here is a typical example,
You have what you think is an amicable relationship breakdown with your long time partner/wife, it then turns quite bitter, as many do.
They then decide to get down and dirty and make allegations of threatening behaviour that are totally untrue and unfounded.


Yes you will have your firearms taken for no reason, dont ever think you wont.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Right then.
Straight off, I think it is important to establish that no right-thinking person would object to an effective, efficient and properly carried out Revocation Process for those instances where it is justified. My observations on salient points are as follows:-

1.When firearms are surrendered or seized, ammunition and the certificate should also be seized, and a receipt and photograph provided detailing the firearms, accessories and ammunition removed.
Good and an essential element of the “seizure” of any property - to record all goods and to protect both the owner and the police against any later “shortages”. From what little we know this may not have been done/done properly - a basic process flaw.

2.In each case an assessment is made on whether we need to seize firearms and certificates or ask that they are surrendered, whilst we conduct a suitability case review, with public safety driving this decision. This is done by assessing the threat, harm and risk and this assessment will inform our actions.
Good and an essential element of the decision-making process.

3.The test we apply in assessing information regarding any behaviour or allegation is whether it occurred on the balance of probabilities – i.e. whether it is more likely than not to have happened. More weight will always be given to a conviction where the evidence has been tested by a court but behaviour that hasn’t resulted in a conviction will still be a key part of the assessment particularly in offence types such as Domestic Abuse where reporting rates are low.
Good - underpins the decision-making process and rightly covers all eventualities.

The credibility of the information is considered and in assessing this information we must think critically about the reliability of the source where an allegation is made against a licence holder.
Good and should accommodate malicious allegations.

4.The revocation notice contains the reasons why we have felt it necessary to revoke your licence. It also contains details of your right to appeal this decision for which you have 21 days to lodge your intention to appeal.
Good and a key part of any seizure/forfeiture/revocation process as the owner of the “loss” should expect and must be given good reason for loss

5.This is purely down to operational resourcing. In order to correctly handle firearms officers need to be trained to do so. The vast majority of those officers who are trained in the correct handling and storage of Firearms are our armed colleagues.
Debatable but acceptable in this day and age - proper training protects the police and society, the average policeman may have no experience of firearms.

Soooo, where does this leave us? The process as set out is apparently sound but as ever it is the implementation that may let it down. We can rant and rail all we want in respect of these two cases but fundamentally any information garnered is inevitably “slanted” towards the “victims - that is no criticism of them, indeed they may well be totally accurate. The critical gap is the absence of hard information from the other party i.e. D&C which we are highly unlikely to ever see so inevitably any judgements made by us will be flawed. Clearly if the details as reported are correct then D&C has failed to implement the quintessential “1” and “4” above which I find astounding especially when seen against that Force’s seizure’s “batting average” - it is hardly a new event and one would have to assume that there is a reasonably small Armed Response Unit to be involved.
My own view is that if true and accurate D&C should be pursued for these abject failures through the established complaints/ombudsman channels and corrective action taken. This of course is a matter for the involved private individuals to consider.
For the rest of us, god forbid, should that knock ever come to our door, you now know what to expect and more importantly, what you should receive at time of seizure and an awful thought, revocation.

 

[Liveonce]

Legally yes it is for the Police.

Could the law be changed and it be done another way, yes. Would the courts and government see justification in further increasing the backlog within the court service, no - mainly because there appears to be nothing to show that the police are failing in their role as licensing authority with this regard. There can also be delays in getting things in court, and this may risk public safety too.

Typical of most licensing regimes, the licensing authority make the decision being the ‘expert’ with knowledge of the regime and the public safety considerations. The Courts act as the final arbitrator in the even of dispute or disagreement.

other than perceptions against the police, where is the evidence to show that the police in the whole are not capable or cannot be trusted to make appropriate revocation decisions - comment obviously pending the report into the Plymouth shootings. Also where is the evidence that lay magistrates will make better decisions.

Personally I understand your thoughts, but don’t see the case to justify it. But do enjoy debating these things!

hear what your saying, but if you got done for dangerous driving or drink driving is it not the case you do not lose your licence until brought before a judge? In which case you are still potentially a danger until said court appearance.

Why should the police not collate the evidence to revoke and then not have to present the case to a judge to make the final decision.
Then at least the defendant has opportunity to put their side before the certificate is revoked.
No reason why the firearms cannot be surrendered until the case goes to court.